u.s. that organic products are meeting the standards. so we can imagine how this is happening in places like china. >> you can watch this and other programs online at booktv.org. .. >> i am so honored and honored to be added to the list. >> i have a new book that just came out with in the last two weeks.

it is entitled at the break. will obama pushes at the edge? there are a lot of crucial things are happening right now. unfortunately, in some areas, the president's policies have permanently damaged the country. there are other areas where i think we are close and things can still be fixed and disaster can be averted in some areas. but i will try to go through a few of the topics that i will have. everything from health care to the economy to gun control. there have been a lot of things happening over the last couple of weeks. i was in colorado a couple of weeks ago. it is the first time that i heard of the white house getting involved in the passage of legislation. the big news was vice president john -- joe biden had been

lobbying. and they may end up facing primary opponents if things went the wrong way. there was about seven democrats. there are a lot of things that are happening right now. what i would like to start off with is health care. some of the changes that are happening, let's go through those and what you can expect the next year or so. this one area that the president is not going to compromise. i think there is a good chance that we will see the destruction of private health insurance in this country relatively quickly.

among the big changes that we have seen. a lot of pharmaceutical companies. pfizer and merck. we have seen huge increases a lot of changes in terms of health care premiums. and as you can see, these are from the bureau of labor statistics. the consumer price index numbers, the price of health care insurance, you can see that it was rising up until the end of 2007 and then pretty much falling until the beginning of 2011. then we had over the next 24 months, we had about a 20% increase in the price of health

insurance. that changed recently started when the obamacare regulation started going into effect. he started seeing the drops in health insurance premiums and this huge increase. some are very involved in politics. apparently there was a big increase in the private insurance premiums for health care. and her provider said, what is going on? why do i get this big increase? you know, here's the deal with that. the president promised that health insurance would be able to offer a lot more services and lower costs. well, if that was true, we would not have to mandate them to do that. if i could be a consultant and say, look, i have a way you can offer your customers a lot of

different services that make it right now, and it will save you money. they would pay for that advice. you wouldn't have to force it on them. so many insurance companies objected to the regulations and that very fact should show you whether they intend to save money or not. what will happen starting in january of this next year, the real damage that will occur. the way that the changes are coming about -- you will make it into you have to buy your health insurance. and then as soon as you are well again, you will be able to drop it. you can just imagine how automobile insurance would work. if you could wait until he got into a car accident. he would no longer be ensured of that case.

the cost of you buying that would be the cost to be fixing the car. they're going to be a lot the field at this would game the system and they will feel bad doing it. but what is going to happen is more and more other people people get sick and then they will have to have health insurance rising and only covering the people that are sick. those other people can feel as bad and more of them will say, we are going to be like everybody else and essentially the system will collapse. you're supposed to go and pay a

fine. the thing is you're going to save so much money. and this really isn't working out the way it was originally promised. the cheapest insurance that you can buy is going to be about $7100. for a family of four, the cheapest insurance for the government will allow you to buy is going to be over $20,000. now, when you compare to the premiums now, it is about $5000 for an individual that is the average of the price of insurance. a little bit over 5000, 7000, for a family of four, it is about 14,000. that is just going to have to happen with these exchanges when they get fed up next year. now, that is the cost of insurance. you are supposed to pay a fee or

fine. if you make a hundred thousand dollars, it would be over $2000. but the things he really won't even have to probably pay that, even though that is already probably quite a bit less than what insurance would cost you. in the obamacare bill, it is set up so the irs will find it possible to collect the money. the irs -- it sounds scary that they are in charge of collecting it. but what happens is when you read the legislation, all the normal tools that the irs has to collect is explicitly forbidden from using so they can't go and catch the income of the assets. the threats that they would normally have are forbidden to them. if you overpay your taxes, when you normally get a refund back, they are allowed to keep refund. but how do you solve that?

you just increase your deductions. so the trade-off is going to be do i pay this 1000-dollar fine versus saving $7000, it's going to be paying zero fines and then going and saving the insurance premium. $7000 you save each year. it is a lot of money to save and it's hard to believe that most people would pass up saving $20,000 a year i'm sure that lots of others go and spend their money on it. you can only imagine if everyone wants to save the 20,000. this program is supposedly making sure that everybody is going to get insured, and nobody will want to go and have health

insurance at that point. real problems will ensue. relatively quickly, as soon as people realize that, private health insurance will cease to exist. now, i did want to give you an idea of what is being destroyed here. before i mention the pharmaceuticals, the fact is that it cuts, he means the drugs would've been developed previously and they are going to be developed. that means lives that were going to be saved are going to be there. it means people's qualities of life will not be improved. as always we a big hit for the united states. but the thing you have to realize is that this will affect the entire world. over the last several decades, the united states has been the real innovator when it comes to developing new drugs.

it is the quality of life in the entire world that will be affected by policy changes that we have seen occurring here in the united states. and as health care system, you find out that it's really not the best. there has been a big mistake in terms of how it was described. look at the life expectancy. you take it as an indictment of the quality of our health care system. that is simply wrong. the reason it is wrong and that americans can expect life expectancy to have nothing to do with the quality of health care. so example is that americans get into car accidents. we are risky. we drive at high speeds. it's hard when not on health

care. with obesity. americans have a much higher obesity rates in other people around the world. so how can you blame not on the quality of our health care system? probably the best way of measuring the quality of our health care system is to ask yourself a question. where would you like to be in this world. when you ask it that way, the united states has been providing the best quality health care. if you get cancer, what country would you like to get cancer in. so you can look at the survival rate and you can say that i have numbers in the book and you can say what is the survival rate for people with prostate cancer. in the united states, it is 99.3%. in europe it is 77.5%.

it is 92% in the united states, 86% in europe. breast cancer over 90%. 79% in europe. you can go down the list with differences in every single category. survival rates are higher in europe than they are the united states. and the rest of the world, there are even larger gaps. so another way looking at this, surveys of how happy americans are. there are lots of things you can't just quantify in terms of the survival rate. the customer service that you receive, do people treat you well. americans are extremely happy with the quality of individual health care that they receive.

if you ask americans if they are happy with the quality of health care, 90% of americans will say yes. if you look at people that are chronically ill, you'll get 93 and 95% satisfaction rates with health care. even more amazing is that the uninsured in the united states are generally very happy with the quality of their health care. they may not be as happy as the insured are, but the uninsured in the united states are about as happy as those covered by government systems in other countries. the problem is that people think of you are uninsured, that is the same thing as not getting health care. but it's simply not.

the surveys were done before. even uninsured americans were even higher in terms of their satisfaction rates. i have some numbers here so you can kind of see the breakdown. if you look at questions about being satisfied with the quality of health care or how satisfied are you about getting a doctor's appointment when you want one, or how satisfied are you when you see a specialist in the ability to get the latest and most sophisticated medical treatment. you will find consistently that insured are extremely satisfied and the others are basically no different than those in canada in terms of the quality.

their own perception of the quality of the health care they received. those are some of things that i think we risk losing. part of what is happening, one of the reasons why they will destroy the private health insurance with regulations that i'm talking about is to advance this to a single-payer type plan in a country like canada. when you look at the surveys, the uninsured wouldn't benefit because they are just as happy already with the quality of their health care. and there is a big gap between the uninsured and the insured. there is still time.

we are at the brink, but hopefully we can be kept from going over the edge. it could be a little bit hard to see, but this is showing the present and 10% growth in jobs. his is basically looking at the 43 month that recovery started. we can divide this into three categories. one is recovery after severe recession. and the average recovery, and this line here is the growth rate in jobs after mild recovery. you have a much bigger gain in jobs afterwards. this solid line here is the growth rate in jobs during the obama recovery.

so in this case it is about six times more. we can argue about whether it is as severe as the carter recession. but if you look at the average growth rate in jobs, this is about 8%. about four times larger than the average recovery than what we have had here. so a huge difference in terms of how many jobs have been created. the problem is that understate how bad this is. the reason is because you have to look into what jobs are being created. there are a couple of facts i will mention. so when you have a recession, operates with a number of people who get hired each month falls.

when you have a recovery, it should go up. more people should be hired each month. during this recovery, we actually have fewer people hired each month on average than we had during the recession. so it fell prior to the recession. then it went down even more during the recovery. well, how can you have any jobs being added when you are hiring fewer people now each month then you had during the recession. the way to think about it is a water level in the pool. water coming in, water going out. water coming in is higher. the water going out is quick. so at what reykjavík with their jobs? what usually happens is that during a recession, people don't quit their jobs. there is an obvious reason.

they are worried that they won't get a job somewhere else. so they hang onto the jobs that they have. but the problem is the longer the recession, the more people are hanging onto jobs just because they have to and not because they are really happy with the job. so there's a lot of pent-up job demand. when the recovery starts, rates go up. they have gone down even more than they did in the recession. so prerecession, the rates fall, the recovery rates fall even more. the only reason why we have a net increase in jobs, despite the fact that fewer people are being hired each month, is because we have had an even bigger drop in terms of people being willing to quit their

jobs. people are very fearful of the job market out there. maybe even more so than they were during the reception. they are less likely to quit, even though we should have expected a big increase in the recovery started. so the reason we will get that level of, the number of jobs leaving is even lower than would normally be. how hard it is to get a job looking at the number compared to the number of people that are unemployed and looking, as was the number of people who have given up looking for work. you can see how this ratio.

we haven't seen a number of jobs matching the number of people who are looking for work. people have some good idea to actually go and find a job. when people lost their jobs, they were in a lot of iconic positions. the people in the middle, they hang onto the jobs that they had. the new people don't have that luxury. because they don't have a job to begin with. they are trying to enter the workforce for the first time after they graduate from college, for example. now, i want to show you one way how about this recovery has

been. i want to show you economic gdp. here's what we have at the average rate of growth. to see this as the great depression. from 1929 to 1933, there was a big draw. then it increased fairly quickly and got back up. but what you will see is that when you have had other crashes, it falls but then it quickly gets back. and this is the first time we have ever seen something like this happen. you can see it fell. but rather than going back to

this normal trend, the gap is actually getting bigger. the gap between where we would normally be after any other recovery and where we actually are in terms of income growth, getting larger and larger with each passing month. we have never seen something like that. it wasn't true in the great depression or during other recovery so we have had. it's something that you really need to think about. the growth is so slow that we are following further behind where we would normally be at this point. one of the reasons that i wrote this book as we are in these debates. like the sequestered that we just had. a lot of claims can be made. some say we can't cut the growth

of spending because if we do, it will hurt economic growth. it is interesting. you look at the statements that the president made over time. i know it is hard to believe this now, but if you go back and actually read the presidential debate with john mccain, over and over again, obama promised to make government smaller. he promised. but he said i will more than offset them by other cuts and he promised a smaller government than what we have right now. now, a week or two after the election, he started talking about the big stimulus. he said it will be for one or two years. well, we had a 21% increase during the first two years. that increase in spending

adjusted for inflation is larger than the increase in spending that we had during world war ii. it is pretty phenomenal when you think about how much the company mobilized to fight world war ii there. this is adjusted for inflation. but rather than the stimulus lasting for a couple of years, we are in the 50 or of the obama administration. not only can we not cut spending, but we can't slow the growth or we are told that it will have very detrimental effects on the economy. well, what can we say? obviously, it was indicated that our own economic growth is not doing too well. so what can we learn from other countries? well, what i'm going to show you here is this is one of the graphs that we have in the book. you see the growth in government spending and employment.

so then we have the growth in government spending, then the next year, what happens to employment. you believe the president, or government spending should be associated with more growth and jobs. nec the exact opposite. the next year employment growth actually false. the countries that have done well have been stingy in terms of government spending. germany and luxembourg, switzerland, hungary, sweden, those are the countries that have done well. this happened from 2,722,010.

you can also look at as regards to gdp. the ones that have the biggest increase in government spending. those are the ones that saw the drop in income. here's the problem in part. this notion that government spending goes and creates wealth. the most basic problem is that the money has to come from someplace. if the government spends more money, that means it is taking money from someone else, in terms of borrowing or taxes or even money that lowers the value of a dollar that other people already have. but the government is doing is moving money from where you and i would have spent it, the companies that would've hired those workers to the places that the government wants it moved here. and if you look at this, there doesn't seem to be a very good job being done on that.

paul krugman has a measure. the interesting thing with him is when he puts together these graphs, he looks from 2009 onward. what he misses is the huge growth in government spending that you have for 2007 until 2009. some of the countries that had the biggest increase the had to adjust down because they had such big increases. so we ignore the huge increases and if you look at the earlier time when these increases were occurring, you get the same type of perverse relationship that i was just showing a minute ago. more government spending reduces income. more government spending actually reduces employment. now, there has been one claim that is out there a lot. it has almost become a type of bible for the obama administration. and that is this book about

saying that the financial crises results in slower recovery later on. you know, they say, how do we define a financial crisis or not. i didn't want to get into this debate. as to which way they went. i took their country the way they define it for the current financial crisis. until after the book is published, it is interesting to see how the companies turned out. so this is looking at countries with and without financial crisis and see what happened to their employment. what happened after the financial crisis.

this is the one that our financial crises. these ones should've had a big hit. once with the dotted line, they were hit. i cannot see a difference. both of them basically were the same and they stayed down together. you do economics, you kind of want to say, okay, this is something your body look at. people can play with things a little bit more. so if you look at this, it is pretty hard to say that they get their results in the financial crises did worse. this could be a little bit hard to see right here, but it turns out. and it was due to countries. ireland and spain.

if you look at the country without ireland and spain, they did pretty well despite having a financial crisis. they were basically flat in terms of job growth. ireland is staying down here. can see that this is for the country without the financial crisis. so the rest of all the financial crisis countries are actually doing better than the ones without a financial crisis. this dotted line is for the united states. see that we have actually done worse than almost all of these other financial crises countries. it is hard to say that it is just because we had a financial crisis that we can go and say this, these are the presidents policies and we are not responsible for. so, all right. i wanted to talk about them control. because i think that is another

area in which something can be done. what i hope the book does is give people answers to the claims are being made. if we cut spending, we will hurt the economy. we are talking about federal debt that is about $200,000 for a family of four. basically doubled under the obama administration. if the interest rate went from historic lows right now to where it would be under normal circumstances, you would be talking about $500 billion in deficit this year. things quickly spin out of control.

if interest rates go up, you have this big increase in the deficit and the united states is going to be even riskier, people will want to charge higher interest rates. and what was already a hard situation it's been out of control very easily like we saw happen in greece and other countries. so i would like to talk about the impacts of obama's views on guns. this is another area where people are properly educated about what the debate is right now. and it can make a difference, just like educating people with regard to the deficit that we are facing and the false claims about the deficit supposedly helping out the economy. now, before i get into this, i knew obama. we both taught at the university of chicago law school during the late 1990s. the first time i met him -- the

first time i met him, i introduced myself and said you are the gun guy. because he was already labeled that done. and he said yes, i guess so. and i have known that he was helping out with the city of chicago. and i said, maybe we can get together for lunch sometime and talk about this. so he kind of wrinkled his face and turned his back to me and walked away. that was the end of our first conversation. i probably ran into him about 20 other times, but that was pretty much how all of our conversations went. i did not think that i was going to get christmas cards or anything else from them. i really got the strong impression that he viewed me as evil because of the gun issue. he had strong views on.

>> you know, i have found something on the gun issue that he disagreed strongly with and he viewed me as evil. it is very easy to disagree with many people that are there. but we enjoyed talking about these ideas. i never got the impression that he enjoyed talking to somebody. we are in a situation where obama no longer faces the threat of reelection. his view on guns, he was able to give much freer reign prior than to the election.

well, i just want to go through a couple of things that i think are important. this is one of the reasons i wrote the book is to help educate people and get back on what is coming up. the most popular thing that he had his expansion of universal background checks. i can say that if you watch his january 16, presentation in favor of gun control, one of the things that was amazing was every single number he brought up was wrong. i am just going to go through a couple of the most important ones. there are others that i talk about in the book that are related. so i will go to republicans. one thing if he said 40% of all

gun purchases are done without background checks. so he said it's hard to enforce the law with many as 40% of gun purchases are done without a background check. that is not sacred vice president biden, it goes through the same thing. 40% of people who buy guns today do so outside the national criminal background check system. there was a survey done during the clinton administration. so the president took this survey, rounded up from 36 to 40. but the big problem with changing the transfer to purchases. there is a big difference.

the vast majority of these are within family gift or inheritance is. for some reason, i don't think it would've would have quite a bite of the president said, okay. too many parents are giving a gun to their kids for a birthday or inheritance. it is not going through the proper regulations. it's not as scary as the saying this thing that 40% of gun sales are going ahead in that direction. so this survey was done between november of 1991 in and december 1994. it only involved 251 individuals so was very small. but the other problem is that most of the survey was done before this went into effect.

the survey goes back to 1991. the other problems i could point out that, but if you only ask the question the way that the president has framed it, in terms of what percent of gun sales are going through background checks, this would save about 13.3%. most of this. at the time was done before we had this going into effect. i would argue even this is much too high. because gun sales have changed so many other ways over the last 20 some years. people didn't know all the time how they were dealing with it. so small individuals who had licenses, it's not like they

have a big size that would say, i am a federally licensed dealer. most of them say that they weren't sure if their customers would know it or not. if that is the case, it is pretty much meaningless because you're asking people whether they thought they were dealing with this and what they were actually dealing with. as you can see 93% of kids were within family and 91% of inheritances were within families. we can to see some of the problems here. so here is another claim that is made frequently. over the last 14 years, the background tabs have kept 1 million people from getting hands on a gun, the other time

he said 1.1 million, 1.7 million, inhibited individuals from buying a gun. so again, that is completely wrong. with the correct terminology, that there has been 1.7 million initially denied. it is a heck of a lot different than prohibited individuals. let me give you an analogy to make this clear. the late senator ted kennedy ended up getting on the no-fly list five times. apparently there was somebody else out there with a similar name. when the senator would try to fly, he would keep on getting flagged and he was initially denied being able to go and fly on a plane. he later flew.

but did anyone say that they wanted to stop terrorists from flying? nobody said that. that is essentially what they are telling us. it is essentially -- that's an unintentional laugh. [laughter] especially with regard to the background checks for guns. they are saying that we are going to count this as a prohibited thing. those that happen to have the same name as the people they are trying to prohibit from buying a gun. so when you go through this, basically what you find is that looks like the vast majority of these additional denials, maybe

95%, they are false positives, law abiding citizens who were stopped when they should not have been. if you just look at the initial stage, we had about 76,000 initial denials. cases were dropped, about 94% of those, just at the initial review. that is because they did not meet referral guidelines, they were overturned. were after the fbi received additional information. these last two categories are very clearly false positives. and it's possible that it also includes people who you thought had an committed a crime. they didn't admit that they had a criminal background, for example. or some other problem.

so it could be virtually all of these who are false positives and that's the reason they were dropped. even after we have this 94% drop, about 26% of the remaining are clearly false positives. a survey that they did in 2004 included. if you look at 62 cases, 18 were declined. they ended up 13 convictions out of 76,000. so here's the deal that you have there. when you're talking about 1.7 million people being initially denied, a lot of those, it may simply be an

inconvenience for them. they are delayed for months. but when you are dealing with a large number, the problem that you face is that there is a significant number of people who felt the need to get it done quickly for self-defense. people were being stopped or threatened. you're talking about a real threat to their faces. one of the things i try to tried to make clear enough is that when we talk about these laws, we have to talk about costs and benefits trade everyone wants to criminal from getting a gun. what we must compare is how many criminals we are stopping. it doesn't look like very many. and how many law-abiding citizens who should be able to get a job, because they have a name, even if it is a percentage of this, that is a lot of people

who are being harmed by not being able to get it. the problem is the system the only problem. there is a number that is about five to seven times larger of people who merely made this. they are delayed and the problem is that even delayed by three days, it also can affect a woman being stalked or threatened -- he may not even have the luxury of waiting for five days to get it done. my research shows that you find a small but statistically significant thing even when you have a short delay you can have these initial denials. and you can say that there are benefits, there can be a cooling off effect. but the net effect is to

actually make people less safe. now, there are other issues that we can get into here. one of the key things that we have in this debate has been ripping everybody's heart out. these mass shootings that we have been having. people talk about all sorts of different rules on laws that they want to have to solve this problem. one thing has been left out of the discussion, and looking at a common characteristic of these attacks and that they keep on occurring where guns are banned. giving you an example from last summer, which is typical, but i think it shows it pretty clearly. you couldn't remember the batman movie theaters shooting from last july. well, the thing is it was in

aurora, colorado. there were seven movie theaters within a 20 minute drive that were showing the premiere of this batman movie. only one of the seven theaters had a sign banning handguns. the killer didn't go to the movie theater that was closest to the department. he didn't go to the one that advertised prominently than it had the largest auditorium in the state of colorado. you would think that somebody who would want to kill a lot of people want to go to the largest auditorium on the movie pamir night. it would be the most possible victims there for him to go and attack. they said that he went to another movie theater that was almost the same distance from his home as that one. so he appears to want to go to a

place where the victims were not able to defend themselves. so you could see that when you look at this, all these shootings have taken place where guns are banned. at some point you would think that the news media, when it covers the these things, would go and say, okay. they go through other details. you'd think they would mention about look what's happening here. we had another shooting in places where guns are banned. and it would have a huge impact on this debate. you know, these things take place in other ways. people make comparisons, of course, other countries have banned guns. i can't find one place in the

world that banned guns that has seen murder rates fall. a lot of americans are familiar with these violent crimes occurred. usually gun control proponents say that those unfair were unfair because unless you ban guns everyplace, virginia and maryland or the rest of illinois, chicago, indiana, michigan -- criminals will go and get guns from those places. so you really need to have them banned everyplace. the problem is that does not explain it. criminals can to get guns from other places to begin with. it could explain why murder rates didn't fall by a lot. but it really doesn't explain the increase at all. and as i point out, you can look at other countries around the world. either nations have no neighbor that they can go and blame.

and yet he's still see the same rate of violent crimes after they are banned. even when the nation has been banned to happen. i would finally say that if they really thought this was the case , it would have been nice if they had kind of cool people about it beforehand. but they made predictions. it happened time after time. at some point i would think people would say, it would be random. but the fact that you consistently see these increases afterwards, it just is not consistent with that. i will mention a couple of other things as well. australia is often mentioned as an example. they had a big gun buyback in

1997. the number of guns went from 3.2 million to about 2.2 million. it is usually not talk about in the increase in gun sales afterwards. gun ownership now is almost exactly back to where it was prior to the gun buyback. so if you look at murders in australia, they were basically flat for the seven years after the gun buyback went into effect. so they should've fallen and then gone back up. then it goes down a tiny bit. if you look at gun suicides, it is true that they had fallen after the buyback. but non-gun suicides fell by the same amount. if this gun buyback stops suicide, what should you have seen? it should have fallen. then they should've gone back up

rather than falling by identical amounts over the same time. in any case, maybe we could have some kind of discussion there. but the fact is that it's not consistent. so here's the bottom line. and i think it is very important. the two groups of people the benefit the most from owning guns. people who are relatively weaker, women and the elderly. those people are likely to be victims of violent crimes. it tends to be poor blacks who live in high crime urban areas. it would be great if the police were there to protect. but they are not always there. the people that need to pursue protect themselves the most of the ones who faced the most danger and who will be victims of violent crimes.

you see the gun control laws that the president was lobbying for in colorado were other places, one thing that has become clear is they are trying to make it harder for people to buy guns. it is over $500, it according to "the washington post", to go through the licensing fees and other things that are there. we think that $500 keeps from buying a gun? poor people. that's correct. in washington dc, it is basically poor blacks. the same thing in chicago. the problem is when you look at colorado, they want to have a feel for people buying a gun there. republicans put up two amendments. one the democrats voted down and to allow people below the poverty level to be exempted from paying those fees. given how democrats talk about trying to help poor people,

you'd think that they would jump on the notion of exempting people below the poverty level from having to pay a tax to buy guns. but they voted unanimously against that, there were only two democrats who voted the other way on that. so why would they want to impose a fee on buying a gun and people below the poverty level? i think it is pretty clear that they want to make sure that these poor individuals are not able to go buy guns. the ones who are mainly affected by these types of taxes. you see the licensing fees, other things around the country, they consistently refuse to exempt poor people. in maryland, what they are about ready to pass is huge. not just a fee, but 16 hour licensing requirements that will be very costly. hundreds of dollars, they will have one training facility for one place to go.

people may have to travel three or four hours to get there. who was that putting the biggest burden on? minorities in high crime areas are the ones that need protection the most. it may not be true for most people in the room, but if you care about violent crime, and i think everybody does, these are the people that we need to be concerned about. these are the people that are being harmed by this big national push for god gun control bills. it's one of the things that i hope becomes clear. hopefully they will be provided with information. i really appreciate your time. as i say, i think there are some

places where the damage has been done permanently. we are trying to fix these issues. but we thank you so much for your time. [applause] >> okay, we will have time for questions. please come over here to lineup. the cameras would like to be able to get you as well. >> thank you. i would like to ask a single question. >> okay. >> thank you for your analysis. i was curious if he had any comments about some of the procedures that the gun-control folks are talking about. specifically psychological

issues and wondering how that data gets into the database. the other one is fingerprints. so somebody has to go out to get their fingerprints taken. will someone be available to do that to provide another way? >> i think the main one was the federal discussion, mental issues being denied. there are costs and benefits. that is what i hope to talk about in these types of laws. we only mention the possible benefits, but the benefits are obviously regarding someone who has mental issues. even someone like senator chuck schumer implies that we are talking about a tiny%, maybe less than a percent of people who could be listed as having

these issues. it being a danger to themselves or others. but it is more than that. when you add millions of names into these federal databases here, you you're going to create more false positives. so the question you have to ask yourself is how many false positives you have. ..

they are going to be stopped. here is the bottom line. we know background checks can be done much more effectively. try the companies, if a private company has an error rate or failure rate that the federal government has they'd be sued out of business. so if you really want to go and try to stop these people without creating this collateral gull -- collateral harm, may be part of the discussion, maybe a much easier chance of getting someone passed if they really tried to fix the system. the problem is we saw today in the senate judiciary committee and in other times amendments that might try to fix those problems are consistently voted down. it doesn't seem might they want to go and try to fix those problems and they just, democrats often want to go use the system with the resulting

law abiding citizens being able to go and buy guns. the fingerprints, something that some states have been talking about, that is going to be more more -- and again this is an issue of who are you going to be stopping from going and buying guns by making it more difficult? i'm concerned that unless you go and have exemptions before the individuals that are there you are going to make it so the most vulnerable people in our society to be victims of violent crimes are going to be the ones who are going to be really harmed by these rules as a way to protect people. >> thank you very much for both topics tonight and i have seen a common theme where the government gets involved and is that a manipulation to fit a larger narrative etc. etc. but my question is much more vague. guns as goods and services or

what is inherently different about health care, education or transportation goods and services as opposed to pie baking or widget making or flat-screen making conjunction that the laws of economics are extended and a government that is an interventionist to begin with will give a different outcome? >> i don't think the laws have been extended for any of those things. if you make something more costly people are going to buy less of it. if you put regulations on things and reduce the return for doctors being doctors you are going to have fewer doctors. reduce the numbers of doctors and hospitals out there, what you will have happen is the cost of medicare is going going to go out. anytime you reduce the supply the prices is going to rise. and i think this is something we are going to be seeing more and more up in the coming years as the changes work their way through the system that are there. doctors aren't going to like

dealing with the government pages. they are not going to like somebody else making decisions for them. they went in here is a professional. they didn't go in there is somebody that was just going to follow the rules and i think all these things you know a lot of people seem to think they are smarter than everybody else. and surely people in government often think of that is the case but if you look at some of the things like larry summers who was obama's chief economic adviser, he is talking about too many tonsillectomies and too many hysterectomies that are done and he was looking at the early specialty results from the surgeries. that's why more people get surgeries. the main reason for those types of surgeries because of chronic pain. why is it the government's vision to determine whether or not the value of getting ready -- rid of chronic pain or

not. that seems like a pretty important quality-of-life type issue. if i'm in chronic pain i may not have a very good quality of quality-of-life and it seems like individuals are better at judging whether they are in chronic pain than somebody else who was merely going to be looking at the ones who mentioned that they think is important there. one of the things you learn in economics is that customers usually have better information on what they want than some government aircraft is going to have so there are many different issues that are here that kind of short-circuit the normal benefit that we get from marketing that aren't going to be taken into account but some bureaucrats who salary doesn't vary on the basis of whether or not he gets correctly what types of things the patient's value or not. if i'm a doctor and i'm going to lose patience but those aren't

going to be the types of constraints that government bureaucrats are going to feel as directly. >> thank you very much for. what i can't understand is all of this talk in bravo sierra -- the children in schools. they have this problem back in the 70s and they saw this. there has not been a problem with children of israel being hurt by the -- at sandy hook. the point is we don't -- why we just don't utilize the experience that they have.

a few states do that. another thing that i wish to ask about is, these people that talk about banishing the bushmaster rifle, well if somebody stole -- stole a chevrolet impala and deliberately drove it up on the sidewalk killing the 220 people, they would not say nobody gets to own a chevrolet impala. see you bring up two important issues, issues that i talk about in my book. and look, israel not just in the 70s but even before the country was started, had a real terrorism problem and a couple of things and i've i have done a lot of work on this and i talk about this in the brink. if you look at the terrorism

attacks in israel during the 40s, the 50s, the 60's and early 70's virtually all of them involve machine guns. after the early 70's they have almost all involve bombs and there is no technological change that occurred there in terms of making bombs. what happened was israel eventually learned that they couldn't stop terrorist attacks by simply putting more police or more military on the streets. here is basically the thought process that's going on. let's say you have a terrorist on a bus and you have to police officers. the terrorist has huge strategic advantages. there are at least a couple of things he can do. the first thing he can do as he can just be patient and wait until the police leave and then kill the people on the bus. or he can kill the police first and then tried to kill the people on the bus. what israel found is they just didn't have infinite money. they could flood after attacks,

hire more police and more military on the street but they realize that if the terrorists was just patient enough there would be some opening that would allow them to engage in attempt. the difference with allowing people, is released to carry concealed handguns and we have had up to 15% of the adult jewish population being able to carry concealed guns if the terrorists is on the buzz he doesn't know who is supposed to kill first. there could be somebody on his left or right are behind him or in front who may be able to stop him. that makes it very difficult so if he pulls out a gun and other people pull out a gun he is in trouble. you have to realize something. they had a choice between bombs or machine guns beforehand. when they had the choice they chose machine guns. they seem to prefer that in fact there is evidence we found that

when they moved to ponzi had less fatalities per terrorist attack. and the point is they had a choice when they were forced to make a change. they switched to using bombs. now, the benefits not just for people on the street but as the questioner just raised for schools and other places there, one thing that most people don't realize is that prior to the federal school zone act at the end of 1995 states with concealed carry laws allowed people to carry permanent concealed handguns on school property. connecticut was in fact such a state. if this attack had occurred before 95, there is a good chance that somebody might have been there that was permitted to carry a concealed handgun. you may notice these kind of modern school attacks that we have been having started after the 95 gun free school zone act,

the pro-mississippi attack in 1997 and in fact the interesting thing about that case is the person who stopped the killer there in which two people were killed was a former marine. the guys name is joel myrick and apparently he had a concealed handgun permit and would carry it on school property up until the time of the federal safe school zone act. being a good law-abiding citizen he would no longer take his permit concealed handgun on property. he would lock it in his car parked at a quarter quarter-mile of the school property in order to a obey the 1000-foot rule. when the attack happened that day he ridley -- literally had to run a half-mile to get his gun and a half-mile back and he was still able to stop the attacker about 11 and a half minutes before the police arrived. the attacker was in the process of leaving the high school to go to the middle school across the street where he was going to continue his attack there at that time but myrick was able to

stop them without having to fire a shot. now, there are other cases, many other cases we could talk about where citizens have stopped these types of attacks and i have gone through many of them in my book. but the key thing here is that these guys, these killers are not just going around randomly. you know, when the aurora colorado shooting came up with the columbine case as always they miss out on some important things here. you may not realize is that even "the new york times" mentioned dylan klebold one of the two killers there was very upset about the concealed handgun law that was being considered before the colorado state legislature at the time. the former majority leader in the colorado statehouse at the time of the columbine attack told me that klebold had written the state legislator opposing the concealed handgun bill, apparently upset about the provision that would have

allowed concealed handguns permitted on school property. one of the amazing things here is the day of the columbine attack was the same day that colorado was scheduled for final passage of this concealed carry law. just hours before the state legislature was going to vote, the columbine attack occurred there. i could go through lots of other cases but you know it's not just in the united states. in europe all the multiple shootings in europe and even in switzerland where they allow concealed carry in many places, via taxpayer have all occurred in multiple public shootings in very few places where guns are banned. these killers seem to seek out places where the victims can't defend themselves. the way to think about this is that these guys are committing suicide, these killers.

they read their statements and look at the videotape sent other things that they leave, they want to commit suicide but they want to do so because, they want to do so in a way that people know who they are in the chilling thing when you read their statements is that they say explicitly if i can only kill more people than such and such, even this new town attack the killer was apparently comparing himself to the norwegian person. apparently the reason why he picked the school with these young kids is that he thought he could kill a lot of people without being stops. so they think they can get more media coverage by going in and killing more people and they are right. but nobody is out here saying we should get rid of the first amendment or a.m. media outlets from going and doing news coverage of these killers or being forbidden from mentioning their names.